Correlation between alveolar bone morphology and volumetric dimensional changes in immediate maxillary implant placement: A 1‐year prospective cohort study

Abstract

Background After a single tooth extraction, remodelling processes are initiated and morphological changes occur in the alveolar bone. It has been suggested that implant placement in a fresh extraction socket may partly reduce the alveolar ridge contraction and that several factors like the thickness of the buccal bone wall and the size of the gap between the implant and the facial bone wall may play a role on peri‐implant tissues dimensional alterations. Methods Twenty‐six patients treated with single‐tooth maxillary implants were included in this study. A CBCT exam allowed to access the initial buccal bone thickness (BT). Digital impressions were taken prior to extractions (T0), 1 month (T1), 4 months (T2), and 12 months (T3) after implant insertion and superimposed with a computer software allowing to quantitatively analyse the three‐dimensional changes occurred in the adjacent tissues. Variables related to thickness and volume were computed. Results Participants with BT ≤ 1 mm exhibited a significantly increased buccal peri‐implant tissue thickness change than patients with BT > 1 mm (P = 0.049). At T3 patients representing BT ≤ 1 mm exhibited a total volume change of −8.53% ± 5.47% compared with patients presenting BT > 1 mm, −4.37% ± 2.08%. No statistical significance was found on the distance between implant shoulder and the buccal bone plate (BID) effect. Conclusion After the first year of treatment peri‐implant tissues showed continuous changes resulting in a higher thickness and volume reduction at thin buccal bone plates.

Volumetric changes at implant sites: A systematic appraisal of traditional methods and optical scanning‐based digital technologies

“…Twenty‐one studies (Basler et al, 2018; Benic et al, 2017; Bittner et al, 2020; Canullo et al, 2018; Clementini et al, 2020; De Bruyckere et al, 2020; Eeckhout et al, 2020; Fischer et al, 2019; Friberg & Jemt, 2012; Hinze et al, 2018; Hosseini et al, 2020; Huber et al, 2018; Sanz Martin et al, 2016; Sanz‐Martin et al, 2019; Sapata et al, 2018; Schneider et al, 2011; Thoma et al, 2020; van Nimwegen et al, 2018; Wang et al, 2019; Wittneben et al, 2016; Zeltner et al, 2017) reported generating 3D digital models from constructed dental casts obtained with different impression materials (including silicone, alginate, polyether, and polyvinyl siloxane) with the use of desktop 3D optical scanners (indirect technique). The other eleven studies (Bertl et al, 2017; Borges et al, 2020; Cabanes‐Gumbau et al, 2019; Galarraga‐Vinueza et al, 2020; Jiang et al, 2020; Papi et al, 2020; Parvini et al, 2020; Rojo et al, 2018, 2020; Tian et al, 2019; Wei et al, 2019) had obtained the 3D digital models with the use of intra‐oral scanners (direct technique). Among them, six studies reported that a short‐span area was scanned (Galarraga‐Vinueza et al, 2020; Parvini et al, 2020; Rojo et al, 2018, 2020; Tian et al, 2019; Wei et al, 2019), while other articles did not provide information regarding the size of the scanned area.…”

“…In particular, in one study the calibration included performing all the measurements twice with an interval of 1 week (Sapata et al, 2018), while in another study the examiner had to repeat the measurements three times every other week on five randomly chosen participants (Wang et al, 2019). The coefficient of reproducibility was reported in six studies, ranging from 0.8 to 0.93 (Borges et al, 2020; Papi et al, 2020; Parvini et al, 2020; Sapata et al, 2018; van Nimwegen et al, 2018; Wang et al, 2019; Table 1). Additionally, in ten studies, the operator who had performed the volumetric analysis had been blinded to the interventions (Borges et al, 2020; Clementini et al, 2020; Fischer et al, 2019; Rojo et al, 2018, 2020; Sanz Martin et al, 2016; Sapata et al, 2018; Thoma et al, 2020; Wang et al, 2019; Zeltner et al, 2017).…”

“…Thirty‐two of the included studies (Basler et al, 2018; Benic et al, 2017; Bertl et al, 2017; Bittner et al, 2020; Borges et al, 2020; Cabanes‐Gumbau et al, 2019; Canullo et al, 2018; Clementini et al, 2020; De Bruyckere et al, 2020; Eeckhout et al, 2020; Fischer et al, 2019; Friberg & Jemt, 2012; Galarraga‐Vinueza et al, 2020; Hinze et al, 2018; Hosseini et al, 2020; Huber et al, 2018; Jiang et al, 2020; Papi et al, 2020; Parvini et al, 2020; Rojo et al, 2018, 2020; Sanz Martin et al, 2016; Sanz‐Martin et al, 2019; Sapata et al, 2018; Schneider et al, 2011; Thoma et al, 2020; Tian et al, 2019; van Nimwegen et al, 2018; Wang et al, 2019; Wei et al, 2019; Wittneben et al, 2016; Zeltner et al, 2017) assessed volumetric changes with optical scanning‐based digital technologies. Among them, four studies also assessed mucosal thickness (MT) changes with transgingival piercing methods (Hosseini et al, 2020; Huber et al, 2018; Papi et al, 2020; Thoma et al, 2020).…”

“…Among them, six studies reported that a short‐span area was scanned (Galarraga‐Vinueza et al, 2020; Parvini et al, 2020; Rojo et al, 2018, 2020; Tian et al, 2019; Wei et al, 2019), while other articles did not provide information regarding the size of the scanned area. The method of digital model superimposition was automated (using an algorithm of the software) in fourteen studies (De Bruyckere et al, 2020; Eeckhout et al, 2020; Fischer et al, 2019; Hinze et al, 2018; Huber et al, 2018; Sanz Martin et al, 2016; Sanz‐Martin et al, 2019; Schneider et al, 2011; Thoma et al, 2020; Tian et al, 2019; van Nimwegen et al, 2018; Wang et al, 2019; Wei et al, 2019; Zeltner et al, 2017), and ‘hybrid’/semi‐automated (by selecting reproducible points prior to the algorithm or by using a semiautomatic algorithm first followed by manual alignment) in eleven studies (Basler et al, 2018; Bertl et al, 2017; Borges et al, 2020; Clementini et al, 2020; Galarraga‐Vinueza et al, 2020; Jiang et al, 2020; Papi et al, 2020; Parvini et al, 2020; Rojo et al, 2018, 2020; Sapata et al, 2018), with the remaining articles that did not specify this aspect. Three studies reported the amount of range of errors/tolerance between the two STL files during the superimposition (Bertl et al, 2017; Tian et al, 2019; Wei et al, 2019).…”

“…Table 1 includes the study design, intervention, types of impression materials, casts, digital scanners, and the utilized software for generating and analysing the 3D digital models. Twelve studies reported that the examiner was calibrated in terms of reproducibility of the volumetric analysis 3D measurements (Borges et al, 2020; Clementini et al, 2020; Fischer et al, 2019; Galarraga‐Vinueza et al, 2020; Hinze et al, 2018; Papi et al, 2020; Parvini et al, 2020; Sanz Martin et al, 2016; Sanz‐Martin et al, 2019; Sapata et al, 2018; van Nimwegen et al, 2018; Wang et al, 2019). In particular, in one study the calibration included performing all the measurements twice with an interval of 1 week (Sapata et al, 2018), while in another study the examiner had to repeat the measurements three times every other week on five randomly chosen participants (Wang et al, 2019).…”